Compassion demands better questions

Opinion by Lizzie Brandon

The author has previously interviewed representatives of St Mary by the Sea and reported on the proposal for ShoreLines magazine.

Last Friday, RNZ published a Local Democracy Reporting article on St Mary by the Sea’s proposed social enterprise café in Browns Bay. The piece was picked up by other major news outlets and widely shared online.

For the sake of clarity, I contacted the journalist directly to enquire how the story originated.

She confirmed that the proposal had appeared on a Hibiscus and Bays Local Board agenda, prompting her to make further enquiries. She subsequently sought comment from the local board member, representatives of St Mary by the Sea, and Browns Bay Business Association (BBBA).

Contrary to suggestions made in some online discussions, the article was not initiated by BBBA.

The article itself highlighted an uncomfortable and confronting truth: some of the public reaction has been deeply disappointing.

Online commentary surrounding the proposal has included remarks that are cruel, stigmatising and, at times, dehumanising. No one should be shamed for experiencing hardship.

However, the reaction to the article itself illustrated how quickly nuance can disappear from public debate. Many people appear to have responded primarily to the provocative headline rather than to the substance of the proposal, portraying Browns Bay locals as privileged, self-interested NIMBYs opposed to helping vulnerable people.

That is a stark choice: residents and businesses must support this specific proposal without question or be judged as lacking compassion.

I would argue that if we genuinely care about people struggling with the cost of living, food insecurity or homelessness, we have an obligation to ask difficult questions before a project begins – not after it fails.

Nobody disputes the need exists.

Research from the Salvation Army makes for distressing reading. Moreover, that report was published back in February, before the chaos in the Gulf put further pressure on living costs and ahead of the winter months, when many households face additional pressure from higher energy bills.

There is no doubt that St Mary by the Sea’s vision is admirable. The church wants to create an affordable community eatery, provide dignified access to food, employ local people at a living wage, and reinvest any surplus into community initiatives.

Surely no one would object to that.

The issue is not the mission. It is whether the proposed model is the right one.

The church’s own messaging has shifted. Initial discussions mentioned serving 1,000 meals a day. Then 500 was the figure shared publicly. Indeed, that was cited as the break-even point. In April’s open letter, the figure was reduced to up to 250 meals per week during the first six months. In the RNZ article, the figure of 500 was again quoted by the church.

Those numbers may reflect an evolving proposal, but they also create uncertainty and raise potential red flags.

How many meals are needed to make the project financially viable? What assumptions underpin those figures? What contingency plans exist if demand falls short?

These are not hostile questions. Understanding the answers would be fundamental to any viable business plan.

The concept is modelled, in part, on a social enterprise in Dunedin. However, the church itself acknowledges that the demographics of Dunedin and the East Coast Bays differ significantly. If the communities are different, can the same model be expected to deliver the same outcomes?

There is also the question of location.

The church has repeatedly emphasised the importance of foot traffic, favouring a central site in Browns Bay. Yet foot traffic alone does not guarantee accessibility.

Public transport options in the area become much more limited in the evening. Parking can already be challenging. For families juggling shift work, childcare responsibilities or multiple jobs, convenience is essential. For people experiencing financial hardship, transport must be practical and affordable. That’s also true for café employees.

Then there are further questions about dignity and privacy.

If the goal is to support people experiencing hardship, is a highly visible, glass-fronted venue the most appropriate environment? Will everyone feel comfortable accessing support in such a public setting? Or might some individuals avoid seeking help altogether because they feel exposed?

These are questions worth exploring with the people the project intends to serve.

To have the greatest possible positive impact, it could be argued that a distributed model involving food deliveries or partnerships with existing organisations might reach more people more effectively. The church itself doesn’t disagree with that statement, but has indicated it wants to prioritise connection and community over delivery.

Finally, there is the matter of partnership with organisations already established in the town.

In its open letter dated 22 April, the church affirms its “commitment as neighbours”, stating that it is “dedicated to being responsible members of the Browns Bay business precinct”.

If so, why not engage directly with local hospitality businesses already facing ongoing economic pressures? Why not invite them into the conversation and explore how the community can work together? After all, collaboration amongst SMEs is not a compromise; it is recognised as good practice.

The reality is that good intentions on their own are not enough. Asking tough but pertinent questions and applying critical thinking do not automatically mean a lack of empathy or support.

Because launching an outreach initiative without a robust and transparent plan risks doing more harm than good. If the project struggles or fails, it may not be the church that bears the greatest cost. It could be the people who came to rely upon it.